Who owns Iraq’s media? The answer is simple

In Baghdad, a presenter does not move from his´-or-her chair without party approval. A camera does not roll unless a militia man signals from behind. Everything is staged. Even news bulletins are read as though they were obituaries written in the language of authority.
This is not a literary exaggeration. It is the daily reality of the Iraqi media, which has been shaken by scandal after scandal, including revelations by blogger Ali Fadel about the misconduct of a senior government media official. What politicians call ‘channels’ are little more than ‘media shops’, and independent journalists are disappointed by them. There is no-limit- to vulgarity as long as the financier is a politician´-or-businessman seeking a parliamentary seat.
Consider the intense scrutiny the BBC faced following its significant editing error in a speech by US President Donald Trump, prompting the broadcaster to issue a public apology. But when has any Iraqi´-or-Arab satellite channel ever been held accountable for the deliberate, offensive mistakes it makes on a daily basis?
In Iraq’s fake order, journalism is bought, -script-ed and broadcast. The truth is not published, but rather what the militias, political parties, sectarian authorities, businessmen and state thieves want to be said.
‘When journalism breaks under the weight of money, truth becomes just an ethical option that everyone bypasses,’ writes Margaret Sullivan in The Guardian. Free journalism is not merely the ability to publish-;- it is also the courage to speak out against governments.
In Baghdad, that privilege does not exist. Loyalties are bought, reports are fabricated and journalists are terrorised, either through threats to their livelihoods´-or-with stray bullets. As Dan Perry, a former Associated Press editor, observed, journalists have been transformed ‘from observers into government employees’.
Only in Iraq will you find entire TV studios operating from inside militia headquarters. News is prepared there and delivered to viewers as though it were a military communiqué. Those who refuse this theatre end up on the streets,´-or-in the grave.
Journalism now obeys authority more than truth. This is not a generalisation, but the result of hundreds of cases of censorship, bans, dismissals and sometimes, killings. Official stories rarely provide more than a starting point for deeper reporting that might reveal the truth.
Yet everything in the Iraqi media is subject to the rules of political, sectarian and financial patronage. Whoever pays controls. The result is a hybrid media landscape: outlets that raise the banner of freedom, but which, in reality, merely parrot the government and flatter the militias.
“What frightens authority is not dissenting opinion, but the independent journalist,” wrote David Ignatius in The Washington Post. This is why Iraqi channels are granted meaningless titles and the profession is stripped of its purpose.
In the West, there is an ecosystem that supports journalism. In the East, however, there is a political system that undermines it daily. In Britain, journalists are seen as the voice of society. In Iraq, however, they are merely employees of whoever pays their salary.
Nevertheless, the Western media has not been immune to the absurdities that have shaken its core in recent decades, leaving it confused and wounded. Ask any reader of American´-or-British newspapers today what they want, and they will immediately answer: truth. Millions around the world want it back.
Yet journalists cannot simply erase politicians because they do not fit the mood of our institutions´-or-governments. It is unjust and goes against the historic essence of journalism to turn the media into a field of selfish desires.
Fear and anger have become the dominant political emotions in major democracies, and the media has played a part in this dangerous escalation. These emotions have become more primal and less persuasive, threatening the very idea of democracy that the media is supposed to serve.
As Martin Wolf of the Financial Times warns, such raw emotions are difficult to contain. At its core, democracy is a civilised form of civil war, a struggle for power contained by institutions and agreements. ‘The stronger the emotions and the more constrained the ambitions, the more likely democracy is to collapse into authoritarianism. Demagogues are democracy’s fatal weakness,’ writes Wolf.
Thus, the battle for truth has become a struggle against toxic division, changing how people view the media. It is a war to preserve the ideal of journalism, which is inseparable from the struggle for genuine democracy.
When the influence of money breaks the back of journalism, its value is lost and it becomes something else entirely, closer to propaganda, entertainment´-or-silent loyalty.
And so the question remains: who owns Iraq’s media? The answer is simple: those who own power and money. This is why Iraqi media remains a reflection of authority rather than truth.

Rate the article
Bad	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Very good
Result : 100%							Participated in the vote : 1